ArticleAJOG global reports2026
Comparison of the effects of vaginal hyoscine butylbromide and misoprostol on cervical preparation for gynecological intrauterine interventions: a double-blind clinical trial.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective cervical preparation is crucial for procedures requiring transcervical uterine access. Insufficient dilation can complicate these interventions. While chemical agents are commonly used, the optimal method remains under investigation. Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vaginal hyoscine butylbromide vs vaginal misoprostol for cervical preparation prior to gynecological intrauterine surgery. Methods: This double-blind, randomized controlled trial included 71 women scheduled for gynecological intrauterine interventions requiring cervical preparation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either vaginal hyoscine butylbromide (n=36, 40 mg total dose) or vaginal misoprostol (n=35, 200 µg) 2 to 4 hours before the procedure. The primary outcome was the diameter of the first Hegar dilator that could be inserted through the internal os without resistance. Secondary outcomes included cervicovaginal-uterine complications and drug-related side effects. Results: The mean diameter of the first dilator passed without force was (4.91±1.10) mm in the hyoscine group and (5.54±1.50) mm in the misoprostol group; this difference was not statistically significant ( Conclusion: Vaginal hyoscine butylbromide demonstrated comparable cervical dilation to misoprostol but resulted in significantly less uterine pain and cramping, which constitutes a meaningful clinical advantage. The complete elimination of uterine cramping in the hyoscine group highlights its distinct benefit as a cervical priming agent. Hyoscine appears to be a safe and more comfortable option for cervical preparation in premenopausal women undergoing gynecological procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.